PLAYER57832 wrote:Per farming... we can barely keep a few whales alive in highly intensive entertainment units like Sea world. We are no where near to being able to farm them in a productive way.

I was under the impression that we only had relatively small whales like the Beluga (arctic environment) and killer whales in sea world. The amount of space needed for a minke whale (30 feet long and 7 tons) would not be possible in any known entertainment units. Add to that they aren't generally social so you would probably need to isolate them in separate units most of the time. Note that these mammals can push 21 MPH so you probably need a very very big containment unit. "Their diet primarily consists of krill, small fish, herring, and cod." And this is the smallest variety of the eating whale. Still, about two years to maturation.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Per farming... we can barely keep a few whales alive in highly intensive entertainment units like Sea world. We are no where near to being able to farm them in a productive way.

I was under the impression that we only had relatively small whales like the Beluga (arctic environment) and killer whales in sea world. The amount of space needed for a minke whale (30 feet long and 7 tons) would not be possible in any known entertainment units. Add to that they aren't generally social so you would probably need to isolate them in separate units most of the time. Note that these mammals can push 21 MPH so you probably need a very very big containment unit. "Their diet primarily consists of krill, small fish, herring, and cod." And this is the smallest variety of the eating whale. Still, about two years to maturation.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then you have the food argument itself---Cows eat grass, the "chaff" or parts that are inedible to human beings, like goats and sheep (but pigs, to contrast eat "human-viable" food). ...In short, many of the most classic arguments about why folks should be vegetarien are actually wrong when it comes to ruminents

Many cows are fed grains and other things that humans could eat, at 10% efficiency in conversion.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then you have the food argument itself---Cows eat grass, the "chaff" or parts that are inedible to human beings, like goats and sheep (but pigs, to contrast eat "human-viable" food). ...In short, many of the most classic arguments about why folks should be vegetarien are actually wrong when it comes to ruminents

Many cows are fed grains and other things that humans could eat, at 10% efficiency in conversion.

If you are talking about feed that has in any way corn in it,it risks the contraction of lethal diseases such as E. Coli, which can contaminate fruits vegetables, and other farm products grow from the contaminated water/dung. . .that makes its way into the soil and aquifers plus if it rains where E.Coli is present the Rain distributes the E.Coli and makes it impossible to control. As such I also doubt there is a way to exterminate E.Coli once contracted, b/c if so it would already have been done. This is said in mind with the fact that most of our Beef (is done at large scale, filthy, and uncontrollable conditions) so in terms of "Farming" as mentioned earlier comes with the cost of chances of contracting a lethal disease and shortly after death. Fun, Fun.

aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.

CreepersWiener wrote:Why? Any particular reason? I would think if we ocean farmed whales we could feed a lot more people in the world than raising cattle. Cattle produce so much methane that they are screwing the Ozone Layer! When whales shit and fart, it just goes "Blub, Blub, Blub, Blub...and then the ocean cleans it up and little fishies eat all the whale poop!

We could also produce lots of oil from whale blubber! Diesel prices could be brought down and it would be a totally new renewable energy resource!

Because the fucking hippies (who are responsible for all the problems in the world) think whales have feelings and should be treated like humans.

Because unlike you they are worth something!

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why not leave them out at sea but put GPS units on them?

In this case it would be the exact opposite of farm raised fish ... current whales have too much mercury in them when living in the wild. In other words, current wild whale is already dangerously toxic for human consumption.

maxfaraday wrote:Because the fucking hippies (who are responsible for all the problems in the world) think whales have feelings and should be treated like humans.

That statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin. I mean those damn hippies treat humans like shit. They would exterminate us all if they had their wish. They certainly don't want to treat whales like they treat humans.

And whales have feelings; they have whale feelings. I have no idea what they are because I'm not a whale, but they have feelings. Ironically, the current species hunted the most (because the larger ones are all outlawed) are the ones that tend to be friendly to humans in the first place.

Any good hunter will tell you that not only do animals have feelings, they deserve respect. That doesn't mean you treat them like humans, but there is an appropriate level to treat them.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Seriously, a cow can have a new calf every three-four months, without any artificial enhancements.

PLAYER57832 wrote:but carry on... just had to insert a little truth into what is obviously a spurious, jovially sarcastic thread.

A cow has a gestation period of about nine months or sometimes even a little longer. Therefore, they cannot possibly have a calf every three to four months.

OK, you are absolutely correct. MY very bad....

A cow does take just over 9 months to give birth. In a typical dairy farm, they calve stays with the cow or is at least fed the colostrum milk for a day or two. Then the calf is removed (either raised "for good" or sold after a short bit). Beef calves are often left with their mothers longer, particularly range animals.

At any rate, in a year or so the female calf is ready to be bred herself.

Still, basic argument is still valid, though it depends some on which whale. A humpback whale gestates for 11 months, which may not seem that much more than a cow. However, a humback reaches "puberty" at age 4-7, and doesn't reach adulthood until age 15 or so. In the time it takes for one humback to grow to size, replicate itself even once, you could have at least 8 generations of dairy or beef cows. That means over 50 cows in the time it would take to get just one additional humback calf.. not even a fullgrown additional humpback.

Someone else can do the math for other species, if they wish. Anyway, cows can be pretty well cut down, population very reduced and still bounce back readily. Whales.. not so much. It was OK for a few indigenous peoples to take a whale or two a year. That's just basic mortality. When people started taking the whales seriously, then the populations quickly crashed... and have not rebound.

From a strictly reproductive perspective, it is not likely that whales will ever amount to a serious and sustainble food source for more than a few isolated groups of people.

Then, of course, you have the other arguments -- the amount of energy it takes to make a pound of whale meat, the sense that whales might be intelligent, etc, etc.

Fro cows today, the first part of what I said is actually true, but only with enhancements. Cows are given heavy hormones to produce multiple eggs which are then emplanted in other cows. However, this is a very unnatural (and many say genetically dangerous) process.

Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then you have the food argument itself---Cows eat grass, the "chaff" or parts that are inedible to human beings, like goats and sheep (but pigs, to contrast eat "human-viable" food). ...In short, many of the most classic arguments about why folks should be vegetarien are actually wrong when it comes to ruminents

Many cows are fed grains and other things that humans could eat, at 10% efficiency in conversion.

This is true, but it is not necessary, is not why we have come to depend so heavily upon ruminents.

Pigs, to contrast do eat human food. They eat our "waste" traditionally.. which is part of why they are reviled, but some anthropologists argue that the direct food competition bit is also significant.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then you have the food argument itself---Cows eat grass, the "chaff" or parts that are inedible to human beings, like goats and sheep (but pigs, to contrast eat "human-viable" food). ...In short, many of the most classic arguments about why folks should be vegetarien are actually wrong when it comes to ruminents

Many cows are fed grains and other things that humans could eat, at 10% efficiency in conversion.

If you are talking about feed that has in any way corn in it,it risks the contraction of lethal diseases such as E. Coli, which can contaminate fruits vegetables, and other farm products grow from the contaminated water/dung. . .that makes its way into the soil and aquifers plus if it rains where E.Coli is present the Rain distributes the E.Coli and makes it impossible to control. As such I also doubt there is a way to exterminate E.Coli once contracted, b/c if so it would already have been done. This is said in mind with the fact that most of our Beef (is done at large scale, filthy, and uncontrollable conditions) so in terms of "Farming" as mentioned earlier comes with the cost of chances of contracting a lethal disease and shortly after death. Fun, Fun.

UH.. NO! You have a absorbed a very common misconception about E. Colis.

The fact is that E.Colis is a very normal part of human gut flora. Normally, it causes no harm at all, in fact it does a lot of good. HOWEVER, there are bad, mutated forms of the bacteria that can cause some people to become ill, sometimes very ill. (even then, most people can deal with even "bad" E. Colis without getting horribly sick.. maybe a mild stomache flu)

The main sigificance of E.Colis is as an indicator of waste entering stream or ground water systems, precisely because it is found in virtually all mammals. Levels above certain quantities indicate seepage of sewage, be it animal or human waste. The E.Colis themselves are not normally virulant, but they indicate the presence of sewage. Sewage is always dangerous, carrying all types of nasty pathogens such as Hepatitis.

Why is E.Colis so harmful now? Partly, its news sensationalism. Partly its how easy it is to misunderstand when news is passed on in two mimute blurbs over and over. Partly, we are facing MANY new far more virulant forms of all kinds of bacteria because people so overuse antibiotics. The overuse can be people taking antibiotics when they are not really sick with a bacterial infection, can be people taking antibiotics for a bit, but not following the directions and not finishing the bottle, so that too much bacteria is left alive in the system.. bacteria that have survived the medicine and therefore have greater resistance to the medication and now begin to create new, more virulant populations of bacteria.

E.Colis, becuase it is found in everyone's guts is a prime factor in the above, but not as you indicated.. its because it is in our guts all the time and therefore more likely than many bacteria to develop resistant strains.

This is also where cattle come in as a culprit. Large scale cattle operations often feed calves & adult animals antibiotics just as a matter of course. The antibiotics help them process corn and help the operations manage illness in close quarters. As described above, the bacteria in the cattle guts then can develop resistance. IF the bacteria that become resistant also happen to have added virulance, then we have trouble.

The problem is not cattle per se, the problem is largely overuse of antibiotics. Also, if the cattle "poop" is managed properly -- settled in ponds where it "ages", etc. , then it becomes very healthy and good, biologically sustainable fertilizer rather than a biological hazard.

but anyway, to get back to whales.... You actually present yet another reason for worry. Many of our worst pathogens.. things like small pox, etc all developed in part because we had close association with animals. Small pox would kill off a whole human population. Normally that would not be a good strategy for any pathogen. The host dies off completely and the pathogen has no place to go and dies off as well. Because small pos was able to find a "home" in livestock, in the form of cow pox (not so virulant), it survived.

Whales are mammels, too. Except, living in the ocean it is very likely that any such bacteria found in whales would be spread far more readily in the oceans.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then you have the food argument itself---Cows eat grass, the "chaff" or parts that are inedible to human beings, like goats and sheep (but pigs, to contrast eat "human-viable" food). ...In short, many of the most classic arguments about why folks should be vegetarien are actually wrong when it comes to ruminents

Many cows are fed grains and other things that humans could eat, at 10% efficiency in conversion.

If you are talking about feed that has in any way corn in it,it risks the contraction of lethal diseases such as E. Coli, which can contaminate fruits vegetables, and other farm products grow from the contaminated water/dung. . .that makes its way into the soil and aquifers plus if it rains where E.Coli is present the Rain distributes the E.Coli and makes it impossible to control. As such I also doubt there is a way to exterminate E.Coli once contracted, b/c if so it would already have been done. This is said in mind with the fact that most of our Beef (is done at large scale, filthy, and uncontrollable conditions) so in terms of "Farming" as mentioned earlier comes with the cost of chances of contracting a lethal disease and shortly after death. Fun, Fun.

UH.. NO! You have a absorbed a very common misconception about E. Colis.

The fact is that E.Colis is not actually a "terrible disease", it is a very normal part of human gut flora. Normally, it causes no harm at all, in fact it does a lot of good. HOWEVER, there are bad, mutated forms of the bacteria that can cause some people to become ill, sometimes very ill. (even then, most people can deal with even "bad" E. Colis without getting horribly sick.. maybe a mild stomache flu)

The main sigificance of E.Colis is as an indicator of waste entering stream or ground water systems, precisely because it is found in virtually all mammals. Levels above certain quantities indicate seepage of sewage, be it animal or human waste. The E.Colis themselves are not normally virulant, but they indicate the presence of sewage. Sewage is always dangerous, carrying all types of nasty pathogens such as Hepatitis.

Why is E.Colis so harmful now? Partly, its news sensationalism. Partly its how easy it is to misunderstand when news is passed on in two mimute blurbs over and over. Partly, we are facing MANY new far more virulant forms of all kinds of bacteria because people so overuse antibiotics. The overuse can be people taking antibiotics when they are not really sick with a bacterial infection, can be people taking antibiotics for a bit, but not following the directions and not finishing the bottle, so that too much bacteria is left alive in the system.. bacteria that have survived the medicine and therefore have greater resistance to the medication and now begin to create new, more virulant populations of bacteria.

E.Colis, becuase it is found in everyone's guts is a prime factor in the above, but not as you indicated.. its because it is in our guts all the time and therefore more likely than many bacteria to develop resistant strains.

This is also where cattle come in as a culprit. Large scale cattle operations often feed calves & adult animals antibiotics just as a matter of course. The antibiotics help them process corn and help the operations manage illness in close quarters. As described above, the bacteria in the cattle guts then can develop resistance. IF the bacteria that become resistant also happen to have added virulance, then we have trouble.

The problem is not cattle per se, the problem is largely overuse of antibiotics. Also, if the cattle "poop" is managed properly -- settled in ponds where it "ages", etc. , then it becomes very healthy and good, biologically sustainable fertilizer rather than a biological hazard.

but anyway, to get back to whales.... You actually present yet another reason for worry. Many of our worst pathogens.. things like small pox, etc all developed in part because we had close association with animals. Small pox would kill off a whole human population. Normally that would not be a good strategy for any pathogen. The host dies off completely and the pathogen has no place to go and dies off as well. Because small pos was able to find a "home" in livestock, in the form of cow pox (not so virulant), it survived.

Whales are mammels, too. Except, living in the ocean it is very likely that any such bacteria found in whales would be spread far more readily in the oceans.

maxfaraday wrote:Because the fucking hippies (who are responsible for all the problems in the world) think whales have feelings and should be treated like humans.

That statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin. I mean those damn hippies treat humans like shit. They would exterminate us all if they had their wish. They certainly don't want to treat whales like they treat humans. .

The folks you refer to are "eco terrorists" or "animal worshippers", not average hippies. The few to whom you refer give other hippies bad names. Most hippies just want to live their lives and be left alone.

Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why not leave them out at sea but put GPS units on them?

In this case it would be the exact opposite of farm raised fish ... current whales have too much mercury in them when living in the wild. In other words, current wild whale is already dangerously toxic for human consumption.

tzor --You will have to point out the research showing all whales are too toxic to eat. That is, it is true for some, but only some species. (also true for swordfish, virtually any fish in the Great Lakes, etc.).

BBS & tzor -- The real problem (other than the intelligent being/morality bit) is sustainability. It made sense to let cattle loose, because they could eat food we couldn't. When people could grow crops, they tended to farm the cattle by giving them the portions of crops people could not eat. (historically, already noted that system has changed). Whales just don't convert food as readily and take too long to grow.

tzor -- Further, your dismissal of farmed fish as safe is misguided. Concetrating salmon, etc doesn't make them safer.. in fact it leads to contamination. When the farming is in the sea, the impact can be very disasterous to the ecosystem, to other fish and commercial fisheries in various ways.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then you have the food argument itself---Cows eat grass, the "chaff" or parts that are inedible to human beings, like goats and sheep (but pigs, to contrast eat "human-viable" food). ...In short, many of the most classic arguments about why folks should be vegetarien are actually wrong when it comes to ruminents

Many cows are fed grains and other things that humans could eat, at 10% efficiency in conversion.

This is true, but it is not necessary, is not why we have come to depend so heavily upon ruminents.

It is very clearly not necessary, but it is necessary if Americans insist on making animal flesh a regular part of their diet instead of a special occasion food. If we stopped factory farming, meat would get a lot more expensive and the supply would drop drastically. Since most people seem to consider meat a required part of a balanced diet, you cannot avoid the fact that the capitalist system will respond by producing meat in the cheapest and largest-scale way possible.

Until they can do it themselves...The Sea Shepard will do it for them! LOL! What a bunch of overly righteous blabber!

Whales are meat, if you are against killing whales then you should also be against killing cows and chickens!

Equally if you are for eating whales,you should be for eating cats and dogs..

You're looking delicious, chang. After all -- meat is meat! I imagine that soon enough, the Off-Topics regular bout of people is going to divvy themselves up into tribes and sharpen a sticks at both ends. Hallelujah.

BMO

Well we have to make sacrifice to the Beast somehow.

Iliad wrote:The upside of calling everyone scum and making 1000 predictions is that statistically you should get a few right.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then you have the food argument itself---Cows eat grass, the "chaff" or parts that are inedible to human beings, like goats and sheep (but pigs, to contrast eat "human-viable" food). ...In short, many of the most classic arguments about why folks should be vegetarien are actually wrong when it comes to ruminents

Many cows are fed grains and other things that humans could eat, at 10% efficiency in conversion.

This is true, but it is not necessary, is not why we have come to depend so heavily upon ruminents.

It is very clearly not necessary, but it is necessary if Americans insist on making animal flesh a regular part of their diet instead of a special occasion food. If we stopped factory farming, meat would get a lot more expensive and the supply would drop drastically. Since most people seem to consider meat a required part of a balanced diet, you cannot avoid the fact that the capitalist system will respond by producing meat in the cheapest and largest-scale way possible.

You are attacking 3 different concepts in a way that avoids the real answers.

The unsustainability/market argument applies to crops just as much as to factory livestockfarms. The problem is that the so-called "free market" is not really so free when it comes to long term impacts, but there is no inbuilt mechanism to get people to recognize that fact. Instead, we have a mishmash of regulations and subsidides faught for by various interest groups. In some cases, the rules and fights made a lot of sense, but too often, people fight for what THEY want and then justify what they want with all kinds of "sensible arguments."

Traditional agricultural systems of all types went through a very different process of design. People did what worked, what kept them alive and kept their society going. Unlike factory farms, a herdsman or land-farmer each had great stock in passing things on to the next generation. The most henious act a conquerer could do, even beyond slaughtering children and women, was to destroy the land itself. "salting the earth" and so forth. Today, farming in most arid regions is doing exactly that. Maybe increasing alkalinity instead of salt, but the same effect. They are, perhaps not happy, but willing to destroy their land to make a profit. This is even more true when the land is owned by a corporation run by people who may live far away or know little of agriculture other than what they see in their accounting books.

In many arid areas, growing crops sufficient to support humanity is not possible. That is the flat truth. We have altered this somewhat by irrigating and fertilizing, but they each have problems. Is it really and truly better to turn desert into fields of grain or to let some cattle, sheep or goats graze in a sustainable manner? I would absolutely argue that the sustainable range life is far better all around, for the animals, for the people, etc. Simply eating vegetable matter does not ensure that it is raised properly or sustainably. Rice and cotton in CA, for example are anything but sustainable!

Furthermore, growing crops, sustainably, for the long term requires some kind of fertilizer. Compost works to a point, particularly on smaller scale. However, constantly putting what amounts to the dead waste of vegetable matter over a very long term can cause its own problems. Certain nutrients get removed by the vegetables and grain we need for our bodies. They may not be removed completely, but they are removed. Worse, the chance of developing a pathogen that will persist is far greater than if the waste passes through an animal. If the animal waste is, in turn properly composted ("cooked" or dried), then you have a pretty good system.

Saying "lets eat vegetables" is a quick and simplistic answer. In many areas that would mean importing even more food than they now do. Even in places that can grow good and varied crops, when meat and dairy don't make up large a large quantity of the diet, it provides an important asset.

Ok, except we live in the United States and that is what I am talking about here. We have enough farmland to sustainably support our population on crops alone, and furthermore the world's food problem could be solved straight out if we collectively stopped wasting 90% of the crops that we feed to animals raised in factory farms. The fact that has to be done "sustainably" is not an attack on the idea, it's just a qualification on how that needs to be achieved.

Metsfanmax wrote:Ok, except we live in the United States and that is what I am talking about here. We have enough farmland to sustainably support our population on crops alone, and furthermore the world's food problem could be solved straight out if we collectively stopped wasting 90% of the crops that we feed to animals raised in factory farms. The fact that has to be done "sustainably" is not an attack on the idea, it's just a qualification on how that needs to be achieved.

I am talking about nothing but the US, though what I say does apply elsewhere.

We have "more than enough farmland" because we heavily irrigate, fertilize with petroleum based fertilizer, use levies to limit flooding (and ironically resulting in higher need for fertilizer), etc. Texas, large swaths of the west, including CA long produced cattle... and often still do, when pressure to build houses, NOT CROPS, but houses and factories, doesn't drive up the prices too high. On that note, agriculture is now being painted as the "bad guy" when it comes to water usage, particularly in CA. ( Water, after all is for people to put in their glasses and swimming pools. ) This, too is driving farmers out of business.

The real fact is that if things don't chagne, we will be heading toward a time when the US will have to import food.. not just a few crops that are less effectively grown here, in exchange for things large areas of the US produce well, but basic food because we no longer have the ability to produce it ourselves.

NOwhere in all that is eating meat the problem. It just isn't. Pretending it is, fighting animal growers causes far more harm than it solves. If you want to stop factory farming, then buy food that is sustainably produced... be it meat or crops. Telling everyone to be vegetarien does nothing real at all, and actually causes harm.. if for no other reason than it gives people the illusion of "doing good". There are plenty of reasons not to eat meat or to eat far less, health reasons, etc. However, lack of sustainability is not one of them.

AND... just doing without meat is not the route to true sustainability.

PLAYER57832 wrote:We have "more than enough farmland" because we heavily irrigate, fertilize with petroleum based fertilizer, use levies to limit flooding (and ironically resulting in higher need for fertilizer), etc.

Absolutely and positively FALSE. Yes we do all of the above, but we also export a significant amount of food and we also pay farmers a significant amount not to grow. Even then, many farmers keep their fields fallow because it is not profitable for them to farm, given all the requirements for labor and the very small profit margins small farms make.

I know enough about my own state of New York to know that your statement does not apply to a lot of the country.

If we did things right we would still have more than enough farmland to feed our nation. We would not have massive exports, but we would not be paying (or regulating) anyone not to farm.

Of course, if we started growing the right crops, we would be exporting again.

We are not India; there is no threat of a "green revolution" backlash.

We are merely stuck with stupid agro-corps that ironically don't actually farm effectively.

PLAYER57832 wrote:We have "more than enough farmland" because we heavily irrigate, fertilize with petroleum based fertilizer, use levies to limit flooding (and ironically resulting in higher need for fertilizer), etc.

Absolutely and positively FALSE. Yes we do all of the above, but we also export a significant amount of food and we also pay farmers a significant amount not to grow.[ Even then, many farmers keep their fields fallow because it is not profitable for them to farm, given all the requirements for labor and the very small profit margins small farms make.

While what you are saying is true, it doesn't contradict what I am saying.

tzor wrote: I know enough about my own state of New York to know that your statement does not apply to a lot of the country.

Then you know that New York cannot possibly feed itself....

tzor wrote:If we did things right we would still have more than enough farmland to feed our nation. We would not have massive exports, but we would not be paying (or regulating) anyone not to farm.

True, but "doing things right" does NOT mean just doing away with meat and going vegetarien.

tzor wrote: Of course, if we started growing the right crops, we would be exporting again.

We are not India; there is no threat of a "green revolution" backlash.

We are merely stuck with stupid agro-corps that ironically don't actually farm effectively.

Uh, no... we are beholded to the big chemical companies and seed companies in ways you seem to not understand. I can get into this more at another time, but probably should be in another thread since its pretty far from the whaling topic. I have to go eat dinner now, though.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Then you know that New York cannot possibly feed itself....

Actually I think it is you who should prove that the state cannot feed itself.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Uh, no... we are beholded to the big chemical companies and seed companies in ways you seem to not understand.

I understand them very well, but seed companies are into pesticide control. I mentioned India's Green Revolution, which also included significant attempts to over boost the system through fertilizer and irrigation.

Fertilizer abuse was a significant problem in New York and especially on Long Island where it would continue past the plants, into the subsoil and eventually contaminate the water supply.

Irrigation, on the other hand is not a significant problem in New York (unlike the case of west coast states). Most of the state has plenty of water sources that are massed during the cold snows of winter.

Optimally done, the state has enough resources to keep the people fed. Probably not enough to keep them horribly obese, but who really wants that anyway/

CreepersWiener wrote:Why? Any particular reason? I would think if we ocean farmed whales we could feed a lot more people in the world than raising cattle. Cattle produce so much methane that they are screwing the Ozone Layer! When whales shit and fart, it just goes "Blub, Blub, Blub, Blub...and then the ocean cleans it up and little fishies eat all the whale poop!

We could also produce lots of oil from whale blubber! Diesel prices could be brought down and it would be a totally new renewable energy resource!

Whaling is illegal because whales were hunted nearly to extinction. Farming whales sounds neat, but whales rarely breed in captivity.

As for those who've hypothesized that there may be a link between whale hunting being illegal ... well, they're nearly extinct. Maybe when mankind is equally nearly extinct, people won't shoot each other so much, either.

CreepersWiener wrote:Why? Any particular reason? I would think if we ocean farmed whales we could feed a lot more people in the world than raising cattle. Cattle produce so much methane that they are screwing the Ozone Layer! When whales shit and fart, it just goes "Blub, Blub, Blub, Blub...and then the ocean cleans it up and little fishies eat all the whale poop!

We could also produce lots of oil from whale blubber! Diesel prices could be brought down and it would be a totally new renewable energy resource!

Sounds good on paper but even if there were enough whales to support our crazy levels of fuel consumption, there would be so many of them that they would most likely affect our planet in many adverse ways. I've got nothing against farming whales if it's a sustainable idea but I'm doubtful. There's simply nothing out there that can satiate the gluttony of the world as we know it for any prolonged amount of time.